Trevelyn Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SeaBrook Marine, L.L.C., No. 2:2018cv11375 - Document 108 (E.D. La. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - Before the court are plaintiff's 102 Objections to certain of defendant's designated trial exhibits, as well as defendant's 92 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument of Spoliation of Evidence. The court rules on the Objections as outlined herein. In the context presented, the motion is DENIED. Further consideration, if necessary, is referred to the merits and may be taken up at trial. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 1/21/2021.(sbs)

Download PDF
Trevelyn Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SeaBrook Marine, L.L.C. Doc. 108 Case 2:18-cv-11375-MVL-JVM Document 108 Filed 01/21/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TREVELYN ENTERPRISES, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 18-11375 SEABROOK MARINE, LLC SECTION: "S" (1) ORDER AND REASONS Before the court are plaintiff's Objections (Rec. Doc. 102) to certain of defendant's designated trial exhibits, as well as defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence (Rec. Doc. 92). The court rules as follows: 1. Defendants' Benchbook Exh. 12 - Survey Report of Andrew Minster. Plaintiff objects on relevance grounds arguing that this exhibit is irrelevant because it addresses only claims regarding the teak railings that have been settled. The court's review of the report indicates that while principally focused on the teak railing, Minster does opine concerning whether the vessel should be hauled out of the water to address bottom coating issues. OVERRULED. 2. Defendants' Benchbook Exhs. 48 - 52 - Various documents relied upon by defense expert Kyle Smith to challenge the accreditation of plaintiff's expert Revel Boulon, or to establish that Smith's credentials are superior. The court has already determined that Boulon is qualified to testify as an expert in this case, so the continued relevance of these documents is limited. However, because they potentially go to the weight to be accorded the expert witnesses' testimony, they are admissible. Counsel is cautioned, however, not to waste time by belaboring Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-11375-MVL-JVM Document 108 Filed 01/21/21 Page 2 of 2 these exhibits, the content of which the court is well-acquainted with in this non-jury trial. OVERRULED. 3. Motion to Exclude Evidence and Spoliation Argument. In this motion, plaintiff seeks an order preventing defendants from introducing evidence or argument that Trevelyn intentionally destroyed evidence in the form of small sections of the hull plating that were removed and destroyed during the course of a repair. Defendants have clarified in their response to the motion that they intend to argue that the destruction was negligent, not intentional, and do not seek a spoliation inference. Accordingly, in the context presented, the motion is DENIED. Further consideration, if necessary, is referred to the merits and may be taken up at trial. 21st day of January, 2021. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ ____________________________________ MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.